Tennessee passes bill allowing bullying to other LGBT students

[Lockebox]

We can assume that there's /some/ explanation that perfectly explains how reality works, but you can never prove one because there's absolutely no way to eliminate all uncertainty. There's tons of things where you can be confident that your model or explanation will predict something correctly, but can't be definitely proven otherwise.

I've already explained why confidence and faith are different things, and I'm /confident/ that you can scroll up and read it yourself.

Cept i read it

So you're confident. If we could observe said explosion, you're confident that it will be there? There is in no way that you're blindly following the idea that it exists based on information that can for all the sake of science, be wrong? EVEN THOUGH YOU YOURSELF CANNOT CONFIRM IT TRUE ABSOLUTELY.

Thats motherloving faith man. Props to you.

I hold confidence that lighters will light up if they have fuel in their containers. Its completely demonstrable.

You have faith because you have hope that you're right. Like religious people have faith that their God exists. The Big Bang is your god.

[Ad Bot]

[Bisjac]

Technically I think we should have the right to bully all we want in society. Especially if it's just the verbal kind.

The fact that this article was about a specific Christian thing or gay kids is both the non issues.

[Crispy_]

-> I reject the the main theories of evolution (single-celled eukaryotes becoming fish, fish becoming amphibians, amphibians becoming reptiles, reptiles becoming birds, birds becoming mammals, etc) -- Reason: There are hardly any links that would possibly be a bridge between them.  Arguments include Archaeopteryx and other feathered dinosaurs "becoming birds", other species of prehistoric apes that "might" be a "early human".

fossils????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

[Night Fox]

That's a scientific theory. That's what I've been saying this whole time. You and I are on the same page.

the only reason I'm even in this argument is because I disagreed with someone saying creationism is false
if you don't think it's true, whatever, that's your belief, but you shouldn't try to tell other people what to believe

sharing knowledge and talking about it is one thing. but saying your belief is a fact is ridiculous

[Bisjac]

Or that all dna on earth can be patterned in a clear order and ladder.
We don't even have to guess what any 2 living things on earth came first. It's made clear by looking at the mapping.

[Acerblock]

Cept i read it

So you're confident. If we could observe said explosion, you're confident that it will be there? There is in no way that you're blindly following the idea that it exists based on information that can for all the sake of science, be wrong? EVEN THOUGH YOU YOURSELF CANNOT CONFIRM IT TRUE ABSOLUTELY.

Thats motherloving faith man. Props to you.

I hold confidence that lighters will light up if they have fuel in their containers. Its completely demonstrable.

You have faith because you have hope that you're right. Like religious people have faith that their God exists. The Big Bang is your god.

I just literally made the point of their definitions being similar to each other. Faith is not always believing in something that has no evidence, that's usually when people have absolute belief in something, a good example being religion and God. We have very strong belief that the Big Bang happened. Could it have not happened, sure, there's a possibility that it didn't. However, there is evidence that most scientists accept to be byproducts of the Big Bang, showing it most likely happened.. I also hope that you aren't pointing to faith being always connected to religion (see bolded), because faith is not always religion.

[Nonnel]

fossils????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

haha those don't exist!!!

[SeventhSandwich]

There are hardly any links that would possibly be a bridge between them.  Arguments include Archaeopteryx and other feathered dinosaurs

People who use the fossil record to describe a clearly-defined lineage of evolution are interpreting it in the wrong way. The way we know that all life descended from simple lifeforms is because of DNA.

Cept i read it

So you're confident. If we could observe said explosion, you're confident that it will be there? There is in no way that you're blindly following the idea that it exists based on information that can for all the sake of science, be wrong? EVEN THOUGH YOU YOURSELF CANNOT CONFIRM IT TRUE ABSOLUTELY.

Thats motherloving faith man. Props to you.

At this point all you are doing is bastardizing the definitions of the words 'faith' and 'confidence' in an attempt to make it seem like following a religion based on faith and choosing explanations based on substantiation/experimentation are just as good at predicting things about the natural world.

This has become a semantic argument and that's where I'm going to stop. If you want to test your theory about faith being just as good at predicting outcomes as experimentation, feel free to take your faith and challenge the theory of gravitation by jumping off a nearby bridge.

[Georges]

Teach us, teach us!

i'll pass.

[Lockebox]

People who use the fossil record to describe a clearly-defined lineage of evolution are interpreting it in the wrong way. The way we know that all life descended from simple lifeforms is because of DNA.
At this point all you are doing is bastardizing the definitions of the words 'faith' and 'confidence' in an attempt to make it seem like following a religion based on faith and choosing explanations based on substantiation/experimentation are just as good at predicting things about the natural world.

This has become a semantic argument and that's where I'm going to stop. If you want to test your theory about faith being just as good at predicting outcomes as experimentation, feel free to take your faith and challenge the theory of gravitation by jumping off a nearby bridge.

Cept gravity is technically observable. But whatever. All i'm pointing out is you and the rest of your community are a bunch of hypocrites by saying Creationism isn't credible enough to be taught normally.

Neither you nor a christian has facts and strong evidence (which is proven evidence), so the "legality of my beliefs" war is pointless.

[Night Fox]

Cept gravity is technically observable.

not really. its effects are. but it's like heat, you can't actually see it, only what it does, like turning metals red or causing a fire

[XR-7]

fossils????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Go get me links, please.

If the fossil record held MORE bridges than animals that are already existing today, then I wouldn't have any problem with accepting it.  There just simply aren't enough to be considered the missing links behind Darwin's ideas.

People who use the fossil record to describe a clearly-defined lineage of evolution are interpreting it in the wrong way. The way we know that all life descended from simple lifeforms is because of DNA.

I don't see how DNA interpretations can be traced to a simple life form.  Nobody has DNA samples from ancient life because it simply is nonexistent or decayed or whatever by now.  If I can be provided with a RELIABLE link, I'll gladly read it.  That still doesn't explain why scientists still believe in Aristotle's idea of spontaneous generation when it comes down to the origin of life, either.  Going by deductive reasoning: IF all existing life forms are descended from single-celled organisms, then the single-celled organisms are descended from [???].

[Acerblock]

Cept gravity is technically observable. But whatever. All i'm pointing out is you and the rest of your community are a bunch of hypocrites by saying Creationism isn't credible enough to be taught normally.

Neither you nor a christian has facts and strong evidence, so the "legality of my beliefs" war is pointless.

I find it hypocritical that you say we don't have strong evidence when most of the debaters in this thread provided links while you didn't post a single source supporting your argument, from what I've seen.

[Lockebox]

not really. its effects are. but it's like heat, you can't actually see it, only what it does, like turning metals red or causing a fire

True, but I can't see the effects of the big bang. And if someone did show me an effect of the big bang, how do i know its an effect of the big bang when its possible the big bang didn't exist? Take Sevenths radiation argument for an example.

I find it hypocritical that you say we don't have strong evidence when most of the debaters in this thread provided links while you didn't post a single source supporting your argument, from what I've seen.

All the links were being put forth to advocate and assumption. Assumption isn't evidence.

[Acerblock]

True, but I can't see the effects of the big bang. And if someone did show me an effect of the big bang, how do i know its an effect of the big bang when its possible the big bang didn't exist? Take Sevenths radiation argument for an example.

You don't have to see something to prove it. Oh, you can't see oxygen in the air, it must not be there! But, then how are we breathing and living- oh wait! Oops!